Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

[Mike4]

Unlike Si, I see the intentions behind the new quarantine regulations as being all to do with controlling the virus. Although three months too late, that does not make it wrong to take steps to limit incoming infection now.

It is a Good Idea in particular to put a massive brake on overseas holidays to prevent millions of people coming back infected from foreign holidays and re-seeding the infection here. I'm delighted to see some bearing down on inbound infections. Even if too little too late, it's WAY better than none.

So if the UK is "more infectious" than other countries, encouraging UK citizens to holiday in other parts of the UK, instead of abroad, and coming back infected from UK holidays and re-seeding the infection "here" is not going to happen? Or it's OK?

Eh? What does where the UK's position in an international league table come into the price of fish?

But to take your question seriously, yes stopping infected people coming into the country is a basic plank of controlling an epidemic. The epidemic doesn't care what nationality person is carrying an inbound infection. Nor does it care where the UK stands in a league table in relation to say, Benidorm or anywhere else an infected person might be travelling from.

[dealtn]

Unlike Si, I see the intentions behind the new quarantine regulations as being all to do with controlling the virus. Although three months too late, that does not make it wrong to take steps to limit incoming infection now.

It is a Good Idea in particular to put a massive brake on overseas holidays to prevent millions of people coming back infected from foreign holidays and re-seeding the infection here. I'm delighted to see some bearing down on inbound infections. Even if too little too late, it's WAY better than none.

So if the UK is "more infectious" than other countries, encouraging UK citizens to holiday in other parts of the UK, instead of abroad, and coming back infected from UK holidays and re-seeding the infection "here" is not going to happen? Or it's OK?

Eh? What does where the UK's position in an international league table come into the price of fish?

But to take your question seriously, yes stopping infected people coming into the country is a basic plank of controlling an epidemic. The epidemic doesn't care what nationality person is carrying an inbound infection. Nor does it care where the UK stands in a league table in relation to say, Benidorm or anywhere else an infected person might be travelling from.

You're missing my point, which may be a result of me expressing it badly.

This policy which you appear to agree with stops people coming to this country, whether they are from a higher or lower state of infectiousness than the UK. The thinking being this stops those arriving here from spreading the virus. Such a policy will also stop UK citizens from going abroad on their holidays and spreading the virus abroad, or catching it and bringing it home.

Now if instead of going abroad those, perhaps unknowingly, infected UK citizens will be holidaying at home and potentially infecting communities in Cornwall, Scotland, The Lake District, .... instead.

So does this additional "home" spreading matter, in deciding policies and is it OK?

Were I a hotel operator in Cornwall how would I feel if I was told Japanese tourists say, with low infections were to be denied access to the UK, and couldn't stay at my hotel, but UK citizens from the North West say, with higher infection rates were perfectly free to stay? (I don't know if Japan is a good example here, but it is just a hypothetical case).

Similarly, being denied an opportunity as a UK citizen to go to Japan, or other low infection destinations, were I to go to a high infection area in the UK, such as the North West, would I not be more likely to become infectious and bring it home to my home in Cornwall say.

Policies such as these, whilst maybe attractive and simple to "police" might also have second order consequences in terms of infection spreading.

[Lootman]

Were I a hotel operator in Cornwall how would I feel if I was told Japanese tourists say, with low infections were to be denied access to the UK, and couldn't stay at my hotel, but UK citizens from the North West say, with higher infection rates were perfectly free to stay? (I don't know if Japan is a good example here, but it is just a hypothetical case).

Similarly, being denied an opportunity as a UK citizen to go to Japan, or other low infection destinations, were I to go to a high infection area in the UK, such as the North West, would I not be more likely to become infectious and bring it home to my home in Cornwall say.

Policies such as these, whilst maybe attractive and simple to "police" might also have second order consequences in terms of infection spreading.

it's true that the new rule does not take into account whether the person has come from a high-risk location or a low-risk location. But the problem is that there is no real way to know where someone has been. I might arrive in the UK on a flight from Japan, but on my trip I also visited some high-risk areas in other countries.

There is no way for the UK Border Force to know where I have been unless those locations stamped my passport. Moreover even if they did, a fair number of people have more than one passport for various reasons.

So I guess the policy is written so as not to require any knowledge of where you have been because people can just lie about it. And they probably would if it meant not being stuck somewhere in limbo for 14 days.

[ReformedCharacter]

You're missing my point, which may be a result of me expressing it badly.

This policy which you appear to agree with stops people coming to this country, whether they are from a higher or lower state of infectiousness than the UK. The thinking being this stops those arriving here from spreading the virus. Such a policy will also stop UK citizens from going abroad on their holidays and spreading the virus abroad, or catching it and bringing it home.

Now if instead of going abroad those, perhaps unknowingly, infected UK citizens will be holidaying at home and potentially infecting communities in Cornwall, Scotland, The Lake District, .... instead.

So does this additional "home" spreading matter, in deciding policies and is it OK?

Were I a hotel operator in Cornwall how would I feel if I was told Japanese tourists say, with low infections were to be denied access to the UK, and couldn't stay at my hotel, but UK citizens from the North West say, with higher infection rates were perfectly free to stay? (I don't know if Japan is a good example here, but it is just a hypothetical case).

Similarly, being denied an opportunity as a UK citizen to go to Japan, or other low infection destinations, were I to go to a high infection area in the UK, such as the North West, would I not be more likely to become infectious and bring it home to my home in Cornwall say.

Policies such as these, whilst maybe attractive and simple to "police" might also have second order consequences in terms of infection spreading.

I'd be very happy to stand corrected but the figures I read some time ago seemed to suggest that 'most' people are going to become infected at some point in the fairly near future, so apart from keeping the current infection level below the capacity of the NHS, will these travel restrictions make any difference to the eventual outcome? This is a genuine question, I'm not trying to start an argument

RC

[Mike4]

So if the UK is "more infectious" than other countries, encouraging UK citizens to holiday in other parts of the UK, instead of abroad, and coming back infected from UK holidays and re-seeding the infection "here" is not going to happen? Or it's OK?

Eh? What does where the UK's position in an international league table come into the price of fish?

But to take your question seriously, yes stopping infected people coming into the country is a basic plank of controlling an epidemic. The epidemic doesn't care what nationality person is carrying an inbound infection. Nor does it care where the UK stands in a league table in relation to say, Benidorm or anywhere else an infected person might be travelling from.

You're missing my point, which may be a result of me expressing it badly.

This policy which you appear to agree with stops people coming to this country, whether they are from a higher or lower state of infectiousness than the UK. The thinking being this stops those arriving here from spreading the virus. Such a policy will also stop UK citizens from going abroad on their holidays and spreading the virus abroad, or catching it and bringing it home.

Now if instead of going abroad those, perhaps unknowingly, infected UK citizens will be holidaying at home and potentially infecting communities in Cornwall, Scotland, The Lake District, .... instead.

So does this additional "home" spreading matter, in deciding policies and is it OK?

Were I a hotel operator in Cornwall how would I feel if I was told Japanese tourists say, with low infections were to be denied access to the UK, and couldn't stay at my hotel, but UK citizens from the North West say, with higher infection rates were perfectly free to stay? (I don't know if Japan is a good example here, but it is just a hypothetical case).

Similarly, being denied an opportunity as a UK citizen to go to Japan, or other low infection destinations, were I to go to a high infection area in the UK, such as the North West, would I not be more likely to become infectious and bring it home to my home in Cornwall say.

Policies such as these, whilst maybe attractive and simple to "police" might also have second order consequences in terms of infection spreading.

It's a difficult one to understand I agree, but I can't help seeing a basic logic in stopping inbound infection. It's the same logic that says the population needs locking down and stopping from travelling about within the country.

I suspoct the launch of "Track and Trace" at the same time has some bearing on it. They reckon they have recruited enough tracers to manually trace the contacts of 10,000 new infectees a week, I think I read.

[Lootman]

I suspect the launch of "Track and Trace" at the same time has some bearing on it. They reckon they have recruited enough tracers to manually trace the contacts of 10,000 new infectees a week, I think I read.

Manually trace? I read somewhere that people arriving will be required to download an app to facilitate this. They are already doing that in some other locations apparently.

Quite what you are supposed to do if you don't have a smart phone isn't clear.

[dealtn]

It's a difficult one to understand I agree, but I can't help seeing a basic logic in stopping inbound infection. It's the same logic that says the population needs locking down and stopping from travelling about within the country.

I can see the basic logic too. But there is now nothing to stop people travelling within the country (assuming we are talking about England). So the "not-so-basic" logic is that whilst this would stop inbound infection it does nothing to prevent infection spreading within the country, and indeed might accelerate it.

It seems all countries are looking to be proposing something similar, but I fear it will be nothing more than demonstrating they are "doing something" about it, but in practice it will have little benefit, and indeed might make things worse.

[sg31]

]

It's a difficult one to understand I agree, but I can't help seeing a basic logic in stopping inbound infection. It's the same logic that says the population needs locking down and stopping from travelling about within the country.

I suspoct the launch of "Track and Trace" at the same time has some bearing on it. They reckon they have recruited enough tracers to manually trace the contacts of 10,000 new infectees a week, I think I read.

All warnings or regulations have to be very simple and straight forward to be effective. Introduce special cases, clauses, exceptions, however justified they maybe, gives people an opportunity to find loopholes and reasons the regulations don't applyin their circumstances.

We've had the situation over the last couple of days where Government ministers have defended Cummings by saying that one has to use common sense in interpreting the rules. I've no intention of getting political here, I can well imagine other parties might do the same, my point is that using 'common sense in interpreting regulations is the last thing people need.

So much simpler to say 'stay at home' no if's, buts, or excceptions.

The same goes for insisting people coming into the country having to isolate for 7 or 14 days. If you say Japan is ok and travellers from there don't need to isolate you get people travelling from China to Japan then on to the UK to avoid the restriction. One Fool already commented that he intends to travel via Dublin to avoid some restriction. I can't remember the poster or the circumstance but it is an indication of how people will modify behaviour to circumvent restrictions. It's just human nature.

If we need restrictions on travellers they need to be one size fits all even if that is unfair to some.

[Lootman]

The same goes for insisting people coming into the country having to isolate for 7 or 14 days. If you say Japan is ok and travellers from there don't need to isolate you get people travelling from China to Japan then on to the UK to avoid the restriction. One Fool already commented that he intends to travel via Dublin to avoid some restriction. I can't remember the poster or the circumstance but it is an indication of how people will modify behaviour to circumvent restrictions. It's just human nature.

In the case of Ireland the issue is that flights from Ireland to the UK are basically domestic flights. There is no checkpoint upon arrival - you just walk off the plane and you're done. It's like getting off a bus.

So as a practical matter it is hard to see how we can treat people inbound from Ireland in the same way as from elsewhere. And that means that Dublin airport might be about to become a very busy transit point.

Unless of course we are going to funnel all domestic arrivals into the immigration area, if that is even physically possible.

[Mike4]

I suspect the launch of "Track and Trace" at the same time has some bearing on it. They reckon they have recruited enough tracers to manually trace the contacts of 10,000 new infectees a week, I think I read.

Manually trace? I read somewhere that people arriving will be required to download an app to facilitate this. They are already doing that in some other locations apparently.

Quite what you are supposed to do if you don't have a smart phone isn't clear.

Yes manually trace. They have recruited enough manpower to manually trace the contacts of 10,000 people a week, I think I heard. Nothing to do with the flawed app, which is showing all the signs of never getting off the ground.

I've remembered where I heard it and I'll check if I heard right shortly.

[ursaminortaur]

The same goes for insisting people coming into the country having to isolate for 7 or 14 days. If you say Japan is ok and travellers from there don't need to isolate you get people travelling from China to Japan then on to the UK to avoid the restriction. One Fool already commented that he intends to travel via Dublin to avoid some restriction. I can't remember the poster or the circumstance but it is an indication of how people will modify behaviour to circumvent restrictions. It's just human nature.

In the case of Ireland the issue is that flights from Ireland to the UK are basically domestic flights. There is no checkpoint upon arrival - you just walk off the plane and you're done. It's like getting off a bus.

So as a practical matter it is hard to see how we can treat people inbound from Ireland in the same way as from elsewhere. And that means that Dublin airport might be about to become a very busy transit point.

Unless of course we are going to funnel all domestic arrivals into the immigration area, if that is even physically possible.

The Republic of Ireland are imposing similar restrictions and I'd hope would inform the UK about any passengers flying on from Dublin to GB.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-52777526

All passengers arriving into the Republic of Ireland are to be legally required to complete a passenger locator form.

From next week, the Irish government is making it mandatory for all travellers arriving in Ireland to provide an address to police.

The regulations will be in force from Thursday 28 May until 18 June, when they will be reviewed.

The plan does not affect cross-border travel from Northern Ireland.

The Irish government continues to advise Irish citizens and residents against all non-essential international travel, and passengers arriving into Ireland from overseas are asked to self-isolate for 14 days.

Of course someone could still arrive in Dublin lie about where they are staying in the republic and then cross the NI border before travelling to GB. Though if they are a foreign national I'd have thought their passport would need to be checked when travelling from NI to GB which should show when they entered the Republic. ( I thought that passports were checked on ferries between the island of Ireland and GB so I'm surprised about flights from Dublin being like getting off a bus).

https://www.irishferries.com/uk-en/frequently-asked-questions/top-10-faqs/passports-identification/

Irish Ferries recommends all passengers bring a passport with them. Irish and British citizens do not strictly require a passport to travel between the two countries, but some form of (photo) identification is however required.

Brexit: If the UK leaves the EU with no deal, the Common Travel Area (CTA) arrangements are protected, and our current advice continues to apply.

Please note that all other nationalities (except Irish or British citizens) require a passport. They should also check with their respective embassies before travelling as they may need a visa.

[Lootman]

( I thought that passports were checked on ferries between the island of Ireland and GB so I'm surprised about flights from Dublin being like getting off a bus).

I said getting off the plane is like getting off a bus. Getting on the plane is another matter and of course passports are checked at Dublin airport. Ireland is not part of the Schengen area so the exact checks for transit passengers there may vary depending on where you have flown into Ireland from.

As for the Holyhead ferry my experiences have been all over the place. I have arrived at the port in Dublin and found no immigration people there at all. Other times they have checked me.

The interesting question here is suppose you arrive into Dublin airport from, say, North America and then fly onto Heathrow. To make it simpler let's say that both flights are on Aer Lingus but are separate itineraries so that neither leg knows about the other one. You then arrive at Heathrow in the same way as if you flew in from Jersey, Cardiff or Glasgow. Where would you be checked for UK quarantine?

[sg31]

The same goes for insisting people coming into the country having to isolate for 7 or 14 days. If you say Japan is ok and travellers from there don't need to isolate you get people travelling from China to Japan then on to the UK to avoid the restriction. One Fool already commented that he intends to travel via Dublin to avoid some restriction. I can't remember the poster or the circumstance but it is an indication of how people will modify behaviour to circumvent restrictions. It's just human nature.

In the case of Ireland the issue is that flights from Ireland to the UK are basically domestic flights. There is no checkpoint upon arrival - you just walk off the plane and you're done. It's like getting off a bus.

So as a practical matter it is hard to see how we can treat people inbound from Ireland in the same way as from elsewhere. And that means that Dublin airport might be about to become a very busy transit point.

Unless of course we are going to funnel all domestic arrivals into the immigration area, if that is even physically possible.

I'm not saying we should do one thing or the other. My point is that people will use any exceptions to side step the rules. The USA has a lot of the virus, it would make sense to enforce isolating travellers from there. If there is an exception for Ireland, however justified that may be, you can be sure travellers from the USA will come through Ireland. It's human nature to take advantage of anomalies. The travellers know it isn't what is intended but that won't stop them.

The simpler the regulations the more effective they will be.

[Clitheroekid]

I can't help seeing a basic logic in stopping inbound infection. It's the same logic that says the population needs locking down and stopping from travelling about within the country.

So do you accept that if someone can produce a negative test immediately on arrival they should be allowed in without quarantine?

[Mike4]

I can't help seeing a basic logic in stopping inbound infection. It's the same logic that says the population needs locking down and stopping from travelling about within the country.

So do you accept that if someone can produce a negative test immediately on arrival they should be allowed in without quarantine?

Yes definitely, if there was as accurate and reliable test not prone to false negatives.

And there appears to just such a thing being trialed in Basingstoke hospital right now according to Dr John Campbell. A device the size of a shoebox giving a reliable result in 20 minutes, apparently. Still dependent presumably on the standard of the swabbing technique though.

[ursaminortaur]

( I thought that passports were checked on ferries between the island of Ireland and GB so I'm surprised about flights from Dublin being like getting off a bus).

I said getting off the plane is like getting off a bus. Getting on the plane is another matter and of course passports are checked at Dublin airport. Ireland is not part of the Schengen area so the exact checks for transit passengers there may vary depending on where you have flown into Ireland from.

As for the Holyhead ferry my experiences have been all over the place. I have arrived at the port in Dublin and found no immigration people there at all. Other times they have checked me.

The interesting question here is suppose you arrive into Dublin airport from, say, North America and then fly onto Heathrow. To make it simpler let's say that both flights are on Aer Lingus but are separate itineraries so that neither leg knows about the other one. You then arrive at Heathrow in the same way as if you flew in from Jersey, Cardiff or Glasgow. Where would you be checked for UK quarantine?

I've no idea what actual arrangement might be but maybe something like :

When the American's passport is checked in Ireland they are asked whether they are staying in Ireland and thus subject to the Irish quarantine arrangements or whether they are going to the UK mainland. If they confirm they are going to the UK then their details including which flight they are on are passed to the UK and they are told to follow the UK quarantine instructions (that may include reporting somewhere after landing and providing further details as to where they will quarantine in the UK or alternatively that information might be asked for in Ireland and passed on along with the other information to the UK).

For the UK quarantine

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-how-the-uks-14-day-travel-quarantine-will-work-11992551

Travellers will be asked to fill in a form on arrival, which will include their contact information and an address where they will have to remain for two weeks.

If the traveller does not have somewhere to stay, accommodation will be arranged by the government.

Health officials will perform spot checks to ensure compliance with the measures and fines of up to £1,000 will be given.

Which seems similar to what the Irish will be doing themselves

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-52777526

All passengers arriving into the Republic of Ireland are to be legally required to complete a passenger locator form.

From next week, the Irish government is making it mandatory for all travellers arriving in Ireland to provide an address to police.

Hence I doubt it is beyond the wit of man to devise some information sharing scheme between the UK and Ireland since it would benefit both parties (since as well as foreigners coming to GB via Dublin there could also be foreigners coming to the ROI via London).

[DrFfybes]

I can't help seeing a basic logic in stopping inbound infection. It's the same logic that says the population needs locking down and stopping from travelling about within the country.

So do you accept that if someone can produce a negative test immediately on arrival they should be allowed in without quarantine?

Yes definitely, if there was as accurate and reliable test not prone to false negatives.

And there appears to just such a thing being trialed in Basingstoke hospital right now according to Dr John Campbell. A device the size of a shoebox giving a reliable result in 20 minutes, apparently. Still dependent presumably on the standard of the swabbing technique though.

The problem with any test like this is that if any of the other 300 people on the aircraft or 3000 people in the departure airport are positive, then they could also be infected but would probably still test negative a few hours after exposure.

About the only workable option would be to proceed directly to gate where they are swabbed and the tests done on site whilst they are waiting/traveling. One person on an aircraft testing positive means the whole aircraft is quarantined.

Paul

[Mike4]

Quite a lot of new information contained in Dr Campbell's video from yesterday. These are the bits that caught my attention:

The ONS has been doing antigen swabs en masse. 14,500 randomly chosen (apparently) people tested between 4 to 14 May. 0.25% of these people tested positive and are infected. Extrapolated to the whole population, 165,000 people are currently infected and would test positive.

No difference in age categories found. All ages equally likely to be infected, children included.

No difference in infection rate between patient facing roles and general public.

We are currently running at approx 9,000 new cases per day.

Track trace capacity of new infections is now up to 10,000 new cases per day! (mentioned at 9 mins in video).

A 20 minute antigen test device is being trialled in Basingstoke. A fully portable device and believed to be as accurate as PCR test.

The University of Washington has found even in high risk groups e.g. care homes, there is the same proportion of asymptomatic people as symptomatic as in the general population. Even amongst those with comorbidities.

In Milan they tested for antibodies in random sample of asymptomatic blood donors (789) found 10.8% with antibodies

Sweden is not the disaster expected. Roughly in the middle of a chart of death rates of the main large countries.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJMlcKbFOEI

[servodude]

Quite a lot of new information contained in Dr Campbell's video from yesterday. These are the bits that caught my attention:
<snip>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJMlcKbFOEI

Thanks for that, it was a good watch
- he has a very pleasant no-fuss presenting style

This (https://www.livescience.com/covid-19-su ... nging.html) was teased at the top of one of his sheets - but he didn't mention it (I think it's understanding this kind of case that's going to be key to how we might manage things effectively "post lockdown")

Swede's I've been talking to (well they're Scanian and take it seriously ) are comparing their response (unfavourably) with Denmark (and Norway and Finland) rather than the UK, France, Belgium, Italy et. al.; part of that's cultural, because they've always had a rivalry (esp Skåne & Denmark!) even though they're more similar than they pretend, but they also did enter the COVID situation at similar times but took different paths

I do feel like I should be reporting him for fountain pen abuse though... poor nib!

I also noticed he was using a ruler to extrapolate on a log scale

- sd

[Mike4]

Quite a lot of new information contained in Dr Campbell's video from yesterday. These are the bits that caught my attention:
<snip>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJMlcKbFOEI

Thanks for that, it was a good watch
- he has a very pleasant no-fuss presenting style

This (https://www.livescience.com/covid-19-su ... nging.html) was teased at the top of one of his sheets - but he didn't mention it (I think it's understanding this kind of case that's going to be key to how we might manage things effectively "post lockdown")

Swede's I've been talking to (well they're Scanian and take it seriously ) are comparing their response (unfavourably) with Denmark (and Norway and Finland) rather than the UK, France, Belgium, Italy et. al.; part of that's cultural, because they've always had a rivalry (esp Skåne & Denmark!) even though they're more similar than they pretend, but they also did enter the COVID situation at similar times but took different paths

I do feel like I should be reporting him for fountain pen abuse though... poor nib!

I also noticed he was using a ruler to extrapolate on a log scale

- sd

You're welcome. Yes he has a very engaging style and a technical ability and a humility I really like. Well worth looking back through his previous videos too. I MUST apologise for not warning you in advance about the fountain pen. It grated with me too when I first found his channel. In my defence it's a cheap fountain pen costing about a fiver from Sainsbury's - I use the same pen myself. Well not that actual pen....

I too spotted that link but forgot to investigate, it so thanks for typing it in. Was it you asking for the demographic of the choir in the superspreader event? Someone was. I've actually noticed two choir superspreader events. One in USA (this one) and one in Wales. The USA choir has its own website with photos of the whole choir showing the members, and tends to support the assumptions about choir membership demographic one might be inclined to make.

And yes he does tend to make skoolboy errors like the ruler on log scales, and often fesses up to stuff like this in a subsequent vid in response to the flurry of twitter posts nit-picking such things, which he finds quite amusing!